bugtraq - Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:22:57 -0800
From: Steve Friedl <steve@...xwiz.net>
To: Joel Maslak <jmaslak@...elope.net>
Cc: Gandalf The White <gandalf@...ital.net>,
	Dan Kaminsky <dan@...para.com>, BugTraq <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday


On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 06:51:48PM -0700, Joel Maslak wrote:
> That can be a problem.  It breaks non-repudiation - someone could create
> such a "swappable" contract and go to court and say "Yes, that's a valid
> signature, but I really signed *THIS* document which just happens to have
> an identical signature."  Of course if I was called upon to testify, I
> would respond, "Yes, but it is clear this contract was written with the
> intent to defraud us, as to get this property, it has to be constructed in
> a very specific mind with this fraud in mind at time of contract
> origination..."

Bruce Schneier has long suggested that when signing a document made by
others, make some cosmetic changes to break any precomputed hash that
the creator might have in store for you.

Also: those who are not fully up to speed on the details of crypto hashes
might find my Tech Tip helpful:

	An Illustrated Guide to Cryptographic Hashes
	http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/iguide-crypto-hashes.html

Steve

-- 
Stephen J Friedl | Security Consultant |  UNIX Wizard  |   +1 714 544-6561
www.unixwiz.net  | Tustin, Calif. USA  | Microsoft MVP | steve@...xwiz.net